tv [untitled] February 1, 2013 6:00pm-6:30pm PST
an expresso. this is in compliance with what is now the existing law of san francisco. i suggest and urge you to give him his permit and make changes later, make recommendations to the board, if it's appropriate for future licensees. but this man should have his permit. thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is troy campbell. i am not envious of the decision that you have in front of you tonight. it's very tough. we have heard a lot of opinions, a lot of anecdotal information and a lot of what if's, but i want to share in information from a recent article from early january. the golden gate restaurant association that reported that when food trucks pull up in front of restaurants they have been reporting a 30-40% loss in business. i wonder how many of the people who are for food trucks would like to see a 30-40% loss of
their business from something that pulls up in front of their office, their retail store? and then pulls away? i think the 300' radius and like food items was put in place to try to protect those businesss and push the food carts in areas that are food desert where's they need to create activity and more opportunities for neighborhoods that are underserved. so thinking about the loss of business that could affect these restaurants and cafes in the financial district, >> thank you >> is there any further public comment? if not we'll start our rebuttal. you have three minutes. >> thank you, commissioners.
the issue here today is not what expresso subito got right. what we're arguing is what dpw and radio services got wrong. just because it's not okay for expresso subito to say radio services got it wrong. it's not my fault. so the businesses who did not get their due process, who cares? you can't convict someone, let mem participate in an appeal and say hey it doesn't matter. it just doesn't work that way. and this isn't just about getting 301 sacramento and 303 sacramento wrong. it's bigger than that. radio services just extrude up royally. and i'm going back to my map. radius services determined the midpoint of the assessor's block when the law is the midpoint of the block face. and within the public works code, it distinguishes between a block face and an assessor's block. "assessor's block" is perhaps
could be three-block faces as in this case. and it's used multiple times in the public works code. amid the block face where the star is. and all of these businesses did not receive notice. so dpw testified a couple of months ago that 101 2nd street is within a 300' radius. i want to ask dpw did anyone at 101 2nd street receive notice? if they did not, notice was not served properly. the second point is the 300' radius. the ordinance use the word "radius." the order itself says there are no like foods within a 300' radius. radius is the proper measurement and dpw is going to get up here and say oh, no, we're going use walking distance and we can't determine
what a 300' radius, when they are required to send out a notice to businesses within a 300' radius. they know all the businesses within that 300' radius and they are going to get up here and say i don't know what businesses are within a 300' rayus? that is just crock. and third, the starbucks objection. starbucks objected and dpw says hey, if starbucks would have objected we would have denied the permit. i don't see how you got around that. radius services admittedly [stkrao-u/]ed up on the notice. the 300' radius is in their order and they have the list of businesses within a 300' radius for and for them say we don't know what businesses are in a 300' radius, that is just bs. thank you. >> thank you. >> 15 seconds, i have the map, reference to the 200' to the
toilet. if you do a little subtraction, this is a public works map. you will see it's a good 200' plus the time you go up the stairway to the back is probably 240 feet. thank you. >> legalo again. i have a few things to talk about like now. first of all, notice. radius services did notice from the midpoint of the block face using assessor's block as they have always done in all of these situations. if for some reason the board of appeals feels going forward a different radius should be used that would be great, but we were going on what radius service has always done. i find it interesting that the apants would like you to see it says radius, radius every where else, but doesn't say radius when it comes to the walking distance, but take notice of the fact it says assessor's block, assessor's block and that is one issue for me. another there w were questions about the truck issue, and i
would like to talk about the fact that expresso subito does have a second truck operating in another location that hasn't offered so far, but if you feel it would be appropriate and wish to substitute it in. it has the barista inside the truck and dpw has said that they would be amenable to amending the order to specify the other truck, if that is something that you would like to do. and we have pictures, if you would like to see them. the findings that have been adrised by appellants, they are right. the findings were wrong and if you ask mr. kwong he will tell you they were typos. it doesn't have to do with like foods at all. we would request, actually that you would change them, because they refer to a notice provision that has nothing to do with like foods whatsoever. i am going put on the overhead the two findings that you could consider changing, if you wished. here they are. one is there is one like food espresso within a 300' walking
distance and provides reasons for which you could reject the starbucks and substitute the other one there have no like foods espresso within a 300' walking distance. so if you wish to remedy that type [kwro-erbgs/] that would be great, but it is a typo and mr. kwong would tell you that. let's talk about the notice that mr. hew was talking about. there was a newspaper notice about the dpw hearing in march. that provided constructive notice to the entire city. also in a due process case, the issue is whether an individual is going to be deprived of the an interest in life, liberty or property. none ever those are the case here. they are coming here and telling you there is an issue with due process. they are not provided anybody who is arguing that. they did that last time when they thought royal exchange was a problem, but they haven't this time.
so the same issue is the 300' walking distance. that doesn't change no matter where the due process -- the notice is coming from. again, we have done everything right. we have done everything in good faith and consistent with city policy up to this point and radius service policy and dpw policy and we request that you issue the permit. >> thank you. before you sit down, one thing that you are speaking very quickly and i recognize that you are short on time here? >> i'm sorry. >> the first argument set out by counsel for the appellants relates to the language in the code regarding assessor's block and block face. and you ran through that. your response very quickly. can you re-articulate your argument and his response slowly please. >> i think his argument is that because it does not
specifically say "assessor's block," and therefore. >> the code section that is relevant? >> this is not the code actually. this is a guideline from dpw. >> thank you. >> and because i believe his argument is because the code -- i mean, i'm sorry, the guideline does not say "assessor's block," that should not be how its interpreted. >> it says "block face," right? >> yes. >> my position it's open for interpretation by dpw. it does not say that you cannot use assessor's parcel number, just as the 300' distance has no quantitification on it. it's up to dpw to decide how to administer its parents and it does so evenly and it did so evenly and consistent with its own policy, when it took the radius maps that were given by expresso subito and prepared by radius services in conformance with the guidelines >> thank you. i want to give you an opportunity to articulate your own position. >> i did not refer to the
guidelines. i referred it to the public works code section 184.88. where it uses "block face," if you know the address ever the cart. for it's a push cart and you don't put an address, then you go to assessor's block, in which it's a bigger area, because you haven't listed an address. it's very clear, one uses block face. the other uses assessor's block. >> so no address, assessor, address specified, block face. >> correct. it's not defined necessarily in the mff code, but it's defined elsewhere in the public works code as basically being surrounded by four streets. >> okay. >> in this instance, they just got it wrong. they got it wrong >> thank you. >> i need one minute. >> no. mr. kwong. >> excuse me. >> are you sick already?
>> i'm starting to come down with something. >> sorry. >> good evening commissioners, john kwong from the department of public works. in the rebuttal, when i was listening to rebuttal, it strikes me as interesting of the argument again of the 300' radius, the block face, and all the associated really detailed related to both the ordinance and how we process permits it's relates to mobile foods. the statement on one hand stated that when we evaluate for like foods we should use the 300' radius as established per the notification. however, in the same vain vein, it
doesn't make sense to the department how it should be interpreted. we had always interpreted it assessor's block. you are seeing the notifications for the food trucks that happened, adjacent to, i believe it was on speer street which was one appeal. all of these were defined by the mid-block of that block defined by the two major streets. that is how we always interpreted it. i will go back and revere if i with the city attorney's office additional clarification, if that is the will of the board, but our practice has always been to treat it from that perspective. again, there is notification requirement as established under the legislation.
the evaluation as established by the dpw or the providing guidelines were saying 300' in these kind of cases, like food is one of the many factors that we do consider. and it is weighted. the closer you are in terms ever of having like food to the truck, the more heavily it's weighted. whereas as i stated, starbucks was approximately 280-290' away when we measured. it so in terms of evaluation, the department is based upon the guidelines established and as legislation is established to make that evaluation. and we believe that we acted appropriately in this case and i'm prepared to answer any
questions that you may have. >> i have a question. the appellants have stated that starbucks was against this coffee truck. have you guys had any conversation or to verify or not verify that that was the case? >> in this case the department received an email, as stated, by both part ies. it's stated whereas they don't have objections to subito's itself, the concern is about the path of travel and accessible to the sidewalk leading to their facility. so it was evaluated on how wide the sidewalk is also. our minimum requirements are 6' path of travel at all times, perour regulations. i would like to find out from the gentleman who showed that picture from senor sigs of that location and the time it was,
so we can notify that mobile food truck that they are in violation, based upon how it was set up, the permitting requirements in this case. >> because of the email, would you follow up on that, or does your department normally follow-up on emails regarding dispute or not dispute? i don't know if i'm saying that right. >> in this case the email, along with the documentation is submitted during the director's hearing process. >> did you get any feedback from that email, or the department decided that they weighted and decided not to follow-up? >> i'm uncertain if the hearing officer followed up.
>> thank you >> thank you. commissioners the matter is submitted. >> who is going to start? >> i have an opinion. >> i always have opinions. >> go ahead. >> commissioners, it's interesting that both sides spent so much time arguing -- not arguing, but detailing out their position on notice and that portion of due